How do we know when a new government is going to follow a certain line? It places those in power who have been pushing the line when the government was in opposition. How do I know this? I was press secretary to a dpm and recognise such machinations immediately.
Who is in charge of nuclear matters in Rudd's government? Martin Ferguson, who began a push with with former pm Bob Hawke, for Australia to take the planet's nuclear waste. A little later, Howard signed a deal with president Bush on taking the waste from the US, and there hasn't been a peep from the Rudd's Government in reversing that decision.
The agreement has outlined the concept of Australia taking the planet's nuclear waste in vague, fudging terms, but as Richard Baker of The Age has written, measures were undertaken that are not fully fleshed out. Such a technique takes the heat off governments.
Why did Hawke and Ferguson fall for such a business project when they have to know that Australia will have to look after the waste for 500,000 thousand years, or longer? That estimation came from a mathematical model so it could easily be forever. Rocks still have radiation (mild) contained in them from the beginning of the planet's creation.
Why can't Time magazine's writers begin to comprehend climate change? They headline a cyclone causing human catastrophe in Burma and how it exposes its oppressive rulers as failing the nation.
Undoubtedly, but it also exposes the planet's neglect of climate change and that we are as morally bankrupt as the Burmese junta. Or can we claim total ignorance of the changing conditions and the terrible storms that are predicted? Let's put the blame in perspective. Our indulgent living caused the storm, the murderous Burmese government were behind the neglect of the storm's victims.
The planet's governments haven't understood yet that by 2030 their cities on the coast - yes, and look at those - will be underwater.
A French economist once wrote that a country that doesn't have its capital city on a trading harbour will last no more than several centuries. He may be wrong but it certainly highlights the hazards of not planning for an underwater future.
London has begun planning with tidal ducts that will be at the end of their operational life by 2030, for they have taken that date aboard as the time London will be flooded. Cities have plans for controlling carbon emissions but they haven't taken into account all the cities that haven't planned along those lines and will be pouring carbon into the atmosphere for another decade or so.
It looks increasingly as if Gaia (the planet is a super organism) proponent Lovelock is right and now there is nothing we can do, except enjoy the several decades we have.
Carbon emissions from war are fudged by the government and media because war is valued as a way of life on the planet. Despite war helping to finish life as we know it, within the next five years ( no ice left in the Arctic by 2013), it is imagined a valuable tool in helping to preserve the territory of each country, and preserve the past glories of those sacrificed to the war/profit machine.
The fact that no institute or academic hideaway has begun to monitor the carbon emissions of gases from armed conflict is a a serious condemnation of how ineffective our governments are in the face of climate change. The monitoring would be relatively easy to undertake. Explosives and the resultant destruction produces gases far in excess of emissions from coal fires or other power producing elements.
Western governments have expressed horror at Burma junta long enough. With the people of Burma in horrendous crisis from a climate change storm (yes, there's more to come for the planet - see Earl de Blonville, Arctic explorer on You Tube) food and rescue operations should be carried out without the permission of an invalid government.
How can we allow a governmentto risk the deaths of ten of thousands more Burmese? If the government remains without compassion and concern for their own people they should be defied. Operations should proceed and if there's any further delay the government should be warned and attacked by the West. Surely the UN could take some lead in this. They have afterall passed legislation to allow legal recriminations if governments and individuals allow carbon emissions that can be proved to cause damage to the earth's residence, why can't they act on this blatant criminal negligence?
Bill Green
Comments (3)
Add Comments
Read More
